In a civil revision petition, the petitioner was absent. Counsel for respondents argued the revision became infructuous as interim stay was granted earlier but not extended. The court disposed of the matter as infructuous.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAYOF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARAREDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3012OF 2013
Petition Under Article 227 of Constitutionof lndia againstthe Decreeand order dated 3-06-2013in CMANo. 20 of 2010on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Asifabadpreferred againstthe Judgmentand decreedated 25-1 1-2010in t.A.No..136 0f 2009 in o.S.No. 590f 2009 0n the file of the court of the Junior civil Judge, Asifabad.
Between:
Devineni Jayaram Prasad, S/oLate Narayana Rao, Occ: Doctor,Fl/o Rebbena,Mandal Rebbena, Aailabad Dist. ..Petitioner/ Defendant
AND
'1 . Devineni Subba Rao (DIED)
...Respondents/ Plaintiffs
CRPMP. NO: 3957 OF 2013
Petition under Section 151 CPCpraying thatin the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of thepetition, theHigh Courtmay be pleased Suspend the operation of the Decree and Order d1.03.06.2013in CMA 2012010on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, Adialabad Dist,pendingdisposal of the CRP beforethis Hon'ble court.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. G. RAMA GOPAL(not present)
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V. RAVI KIRANRAO
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4: NONEAPPEARED
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARAII.EDDY
c.l{. t'.No.3012 of2013
ori.DEIl
The learnet counsel fbrthe revisionpetitioner calledabsentTherc
is no representatior onhis behali
The learne I counsel forthe respondentsseeks to submit that the
Civil RevisionPe1 tionhas become infructuous.
On verifica.ion of theproceedings, interimstay was granted by this
Court for six weel s on 12.0'7.2013.Thereafter, it was not exlendecl'
The revisic tpetitioner is nol evincingan,v interestin the matter'
Therefore, while recordingthe saidsubmissionot' thelearned counsel lbr the espondents.as no causesurvives,the civil [{evision Petition is dismiss:das inf'ructuous. No orderas to costs.
Miscellane rus applications. ilan1' pendingin this revision petition"
shall stand closed
SD/. N.CHANDRASEKHAR RAO ASSISiTAI!T REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// (/L, SECTIONOFFICER
To
't. The Senior Civil Judgeat Asifabad i. tne LuniorCivil ludge, Asifabad' A. o;; CC i; Siitni.u Gopal' Advocate[oP^U-c]^- ;. 5;; dd i;s;i vnjri xir.an Rao,AdvocateIoPUC]
KVL <sup>,,v- GJ
HIGH COURT
DATED:0811212021
ORDER
CRP.No.3012 ct 2013
t
e r.{ i4,
( " j.<br>oi) 1 0 I $'\l ?rp-l
*
DISMISSING TI{E CRP AS INFRUCTUI)US WITHOUT COS TS
1uJ @ >\ o-a
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the civil revision petition has become infructuous after interim stay was not extended.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Devineni Jayaram Prasad
1. Devineni Subba Rao (DIED)
2. D Ramesh
3. Smt. Kommanna Rajini
4. M Lampati Janaki
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
